This afternoon at the store my son was possessed by some awful and mindless destructive force that I could not seem to derail. He was knocking things over, sneaking stuff into the cart, kicking the balls around the aisles. I was frustrated that I couldn’t get through to him and I just wanted to…
“The problem I am seeing here- the place where this is unraveling- is that for men who are *hearing* about the traumatic experiences of women, and experiencing secondary traumatization over it, where do they go with those feelings? Who do they talk about their own (totally valid!) emotional reactions to feeling overwhelmed with the things that the women they care about- or just women in general- have to deal with?
Because if the answer is women, things go downhill.
Man (internal dialogue): Holy shit, that is really awful and I feel really bad about it. I need to go talk to someone about this. I’ll go to the person that I usually go to to share intimate/emotional aspects of myself.
Man to woman: Hearing this makes me feel really bad! And now I’m worried about how you think of me! #NotAllMen are like that! (Importantly, I’m not!)
Woman (internal dialogue): Wow, I just shared a part of myself and my experience and now this guy expects me to help him feel better about the experience of listening to me? And also seems to be devaluing the integrity of what I’m telling him?
The mistake people make when they talk about not being able to trust Wikipedia is in the implicit assumption that we could trust encyclopedias as infallible sources before Wikipedia.
I like Wikipedia because I know it could be wrong. Regular encyclopedias can be wrong, too, but my guard was never up in the same way with them as it is with Wikipedia. I like Internet media specifically for the reason that Aaron Sorkin doesn’t like it: because it makes it that much more difficult for me to have any illusions about the fact that the burden of critical thought is on me.
I don’t automatically trust bloggers because a group of people I’ve never met decided to give them a badge that says “reporter” on it. I don’t turn off my critical thinking because they’ve gotten to be some sort of “professional”. I have to judge them on the merits of their writing and history of thoughtfulness or thoughtlessness alone. That is a feature, not a bug, because we should never trust any news media outlet implicitly.
In more affluent metros, higher housing prices can lead to higher concentrations of poverty.
I can only assume you know what city is number 1. We need to change this.
I’ve seen a lot of discussion in the past about manufacturing jobs moving away from the city being the culprit. I never see any discussion about people from the suburbs that move into the city learning to accept black culture though. That’s a serious problem I don’t see getting addressed in Milwaukee. There are tons of transplants from the stix and they can’t seem to wrap their minds around accepting any type of inner city african american culture.
One of the professors in my department just mentioned he got an email from JPER (Journal of Planning Education and Research) saying they now consider anything posted online as "previous publication," meaning they won't publish any articles that may have appeared, e.g., on someone's blog. This is exactly what you were talking about--gatekeeping of academic writing, keeping the circle small and privileged. It's a disgrace. Thank you for fighting the good fight here for all of us!!
I think it’s not really something your average person is going to know about at all, but it’s basically
stop/discourage things like this blog from happening.
It’s a circling of the wagons, so they can point to a project like this, which 1. is outside their purview for very good reasons and 2. wouldn’t get funding anyway because it’s “too confrontational”.
It’s so they can point to independent projects published online and say “oh, they’re just some wingnut working outside respectable institutions of learning”.
It’s making sure we never get payment or recognition for this kind of work. On the one hand, it might have the effect of stemming some of the rampant plagiarism that goes on, but what do you want to bet that this rule is going to get bent for people who fall IN the sacred circle of publishing within academic journals and maybe happened to lift their entire thesis from “some blog”? And that somehow this new rule will only affect people who’ve previously blogged academic journal-level material online because they were repudiated from publishing it there first? Because that’s already pretty much the established pattern.
That’s the funny thing about structural and institutional disenfranchisement: it’s this amazing coincidence that it seems to always only work in one direction; benefiting those who already have power and recognition, and further disenfranchising those who have neither.